Faith

[cry4eternity]

This is NOT a religion thread; this is a thread about religious faith.

Originally Posted by http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith

2. belief that is not based on proof:

Personally, when dealing with topics such as these I prefer to replace the word "proof" with "evidence," simply because somebody always pulls the "100% certainty" argument. For the purposes of this thread, let's not assert anything with 100% certainty. Proof, or evidence, in this case would be anything that elevates the status of a claim such that it is not immediately dismissible. Use your best judgement.

Belief in a claim that has no support is faith, regardless of your reasons. Belief in a claim that has evidentiary support can also be faith, but then it depends on your reasoning. If you believe this claim simply because of the authority of who tells you, or some other similar fallacy, then you also have some degree of faith, depending on the trustworthiness of your source. However, if you decide to do a little research and evaluate the evidence firsthand, then your belief is not faith-based. Also keep in mind that the basis of your belief has absolutely nothing to do with its validity. That being said, here's what I want to ask.

When is a faith-based belief in anything ever justified? Why do so many people feel that it is somehow innately "good" to have a faith-based belief? I see a faith based belief as simply "believing for the sake of believing." If this belief also happens to be correct, then it is simply a coincidence. The claim may have been made with the intent of figuring out the truth, but the belief is not. If at any point the belief does become supported by evidence, it is no longer faith by the definition above. I'm reminded of a quote attributed to Christopher Hitchens, "It's called faith because it's not knowledge." Based on the above definition, this seems to follow logically. To me, this "argument" is similar to beating a dead horse that everybody claims is still alive. I am legitimately trying to gain insight on why so many people still disagree with me.

I'm not interested in religious arguments here. If you think that the definition of faith I've used is different than true "religious faith," feel free to point it out. Tell me how the logic would change based on a different definition and also tell me if your conclusion is the same based on my definitions.

If you say religious faith is not without evidence, feel free to point it out, but that argument is outside the scope of this thread. If you want to contribute I would be interested to hear if your conclusion is the same based on the assumption that religious faith has a basis with no evidence.